cd /news/large-language-models/we-made-signoz-s-llm-observability-a… · home topics large-language-models article
[ARTICLE · art-74471] src=dev.to ↗ pub= topic=large-language-models verified=true sentiment=· neutral

We made SigNoz's LLM observability actually reachable…

SigNoz's LLM observability feature, shipped in v0.133.0, is nearly unreachable due to three silent configuration gates and a bug that prevents processors from being wired into pipelines. A hackathon team identified that the feature requires two flags to be enabled together, seeded registries for pricing and span mapping, and a fix for the pipeline wiring bug. The team also added measured answer quality as a missing signal.

read8 min views1 publishedJul 26, 2026

-and added the one signal it was missing

Track 01 — AI & Agent Observability.A hackathon project built from scratch, July 20–26, 2026.

There's a sentence we said to each other on day one and then kept saying all week, because it kept being true:

An API 200 is not evidence that a feature works.

This post is the story of a project that lives entirely inside that sentence. It's about a feature SigNoz already shipped that almost nobody can reach, a real bug that makes part of it impossible, and a missing signal — measured answer quality — that we built on top. And it's about how we used SigNoz not as a black box but as the thing under test.

Most "add observability to LLMs" projects start from zero. Ours didn't, and that's the interesting part.

SigNoz v0.133.0 already ships a complete LLM-observability product in open source: a dedicated frontend module, two custom OpenTelemetry collector processors (an LLM-pricing processor and a span-mapper processor), and CRUD APIs behind them. The machinery to ingest gen_ai.*

spans, price them, normalize vendor-specific shapes, and render them on a dashboard is there, in the OSS repo, today.

So our thesis wasn't "SigNoz is missing LLM observability." It was sharper and, we think, more useful:

SigNoz shipped the machinery. We make the shipped feature actually reachable — and add the one signal it's missing: measured answer quality.

That framing mattered to us ethically, too. Nothing in this project reads "SigNoz is broken." It reads: they built something good, three defaults and one bug stand between a self-hoster and it, and here's the fix — upstreamed.

Here's what actually stands between a fresh docker compose up

and a working LLM-observability feature. Every one of them fails silently — the backend returns success while the frontend hides the result, and nothing tells you why.

enable_ai_observability

is default-disabled The whole feature sits behind an experimental flag that ships off. With it off, the UI route for LLM observability silently redirects to /home. No error, no "coming soon," no toast. You click the thing and you're just... somewhere else. At the time we hit it, there were

use_dashboard_v2

is default-disabled The seeded LLM dashboards are v2 dashboards. Import one over the API with this flag off and it succeeds — 200 OK

— and then renders as an empty "Welcome to your new dashboard" shell. The data is flowing. The panels are defined. The screen is blank.

This is where the day-one sentence was born. Both gates let the backend succeed while the frontend hides the result. We got bitten by both, in one afternoon, before we understood the pattern.

The fix for gates 1 and 2 is to ship both flags together — and it has to be both:

SIGNOZ_FLAGGER_CONFIG_BOOLEAN_ENABLE__AI__OBSERVABILITY=true
SIGNOZ_FLAGGER_CONFIG_BOOLEAN_USE__DASHBOARD__V2=true

Setting only one still gives you an empty shell — the exact failure we're fixing. So any "dashboards-as-code" deliverable that sets one flag is quietly reproducing the bug.

Two registries back the feature — llm_pricing_rules

(model prices) and span_mapper_groups

(vendor→spec mapping presets). Both ship with zero rows. No seeded prices, no mapping presets. And there's a nasty second-order trap here: SigNoz's own CrewAI docs tell users to instrument with OpenInference — which emits zero gen_ai.*

attributes — so a user who follows the docs faithfully lands on a seeded dashboard that shows nothing, and has no way to know the mapping layer is what's missing.

The three gates are configuration. This one is a bug.

SigNoz's LLM-pricing processor and span-mapper processor are generated into the collector config correctly — we verified the rendered YAML. But neither of them is ever wired into a pipeline:

GenerateCollectorConfigWithLLMPricingProcessor

and GenerateCollectorConfigWithSpanMapperProcessor

both write only collectorConf["processors"]

.service.pipelines.traces.processors

.In OpenTelemetry Collector terms, that's dead config: a processor that exists but is in no pipeline never runs. So even with the flag on and a correctly-rendered gpt-4o

pricing rule, the effective traces pipeline was still [signozspanmetrics/delta, batch]

, and ClickHouse showed no cost attributes — not _signoz.gen_ai.total_cost

, not _signoz.gen_ai.cost_input

/ cost_output

(those are the real emitted names; there is no gen_ai.usage.cost

output attribute).

The good news: the codebase already does this right somewhere. The logs feature wires its generated processor straight into the pipeline. So the fix is small, it follows in-repo prior art, and it's the kind of change a maintainer can verify in two minutes:

enable

enable_ai_observability

→ add a pricing rule → observe the effective traces pipeline is still[signozspanmetrics/delta, batch]

→ cost attributes never appear.

We filed it upstream as ** SigNoz/signoz#12268** — a small, focused change that cites the prior-art file and ships a clean reproduction. A teammate's fix, not a hackathon drive-by.

Everything above makes the shipped feature reachable. But there's a signal SigNoz's LLM product genuinely does not have, and it's the one that matters most for agents in production: is the model's answer any good, and did the last release make it worse?

Cost, latency, and token counts tell you the model ran. They say nothing about whether it was right. So we built an eval layer.

OpenTelemetry specs an evaluation signal — gen_ai.evaluation.result

(name, score, label, explanation). It has zero references in the SigNoz codebase. We emit it: an LLM-as-judge scores an answer, and the score travels into SigNoz over OTLP as spec-shaped telemetry.

Crucially, how you carry it decides whether it's usable. We learned this the hard way and built a probe (probe_eval_carriers.py

) that emits the same score three ways side by side to prove which one survives:

Array(String)

— you GROUP BY

is not auditable.So we carry every score on the two that SigNoz can actually aggregate, never on a span event.

The judge is the load-bearing piece: every downstream claim is only as trustworthy as the score it produces. So we picked it by measuring it against our actual task, and we picked it to run locally on open weightsgpt-oss:20b

on Ollama, free and self-hostable.

That last choice is architecture, not thrift. This entire project exists to remove a gate between a self-hoster and a feature. A judge that needed a paid API key would reintroduce exactly that kind of gate — now you need a billing account before you can evaluate anything. A free, self-hostable judge works for the same person we're unblocking.

We benchmarked five candidates. The results were not what "bigger is better" would predict:

model valid JSON grounded fabricated separation jitter (temp 0) p50 latency
gpt-oss:20b
3/3 1.000 0.000 +1.000
0.000
3.16s
gpt-oss:120b 3/3 1.000 0.133 +0.867 0.250 4.66s
nemotron-3-nano:30b flaky 1.000 0.270 +0.730 0.180 5.38s
deepseek-v4-flash HTTP 403 (not in tier)
gemma4:31b returned non-JSON

The bigger model was the noisier one. On a repeated fabricated input at temperature 0, gpt-oss:120b

returned 0.25 / 0.00 / 0.15 — a 0.25 spread — while gpt-oss:20b

returned 0.00 every single time. A quality-regression alert lives or dies on that stability: a judge that wobbles ±0.25 makes "quality dropped 12%" indistinguishable from measurement noise, and can name the wrong release as the culprit. We chose the model our alert can actually trust, and it happened to be the smaller, faster, free one.

Every score also carries the two attributes that make it reproducible after the fact:

gen_ai.evaluation.judge.model

— which model scored itjudge.prompt.version

— which rubric version scored itSo "which judge and which rubric produced this score?" is a GROUP BY

, not a shrug.

The payoff is a threshold alert: avg(gen_ai.evaluation.score.value)

below 0.7

, over a 30-minute window, grouped by service.version. When a release's answer quality slides under the floor, the alert fires

We measured the full loop end to end against a live instance, not estimated it:

16:21:43Z

→ alert transitioned to 16:25:40Z

And here's the part that matters for anyone building on this: that time is almost entirely SigNoz's own machinery — the 120s eval_delay

plus the 1-minute evaluation interval. The judge adds only ~2.5s per call, and because spans are timestamped when the run starts, even that overlaps the eval_delay

rather than stacking on it. The eval layer adds essentially nothing to detection time; SigNoz's evaluation interval is the floor.

For the demo we use a deliberately loud drop — measured mean 0.958 → 0.167 — so the mechanism is legible in one glance. That's a demo choice, not a limitation: the alert fires on the same 0.7 floor whether the slide is a cliff or a subtle crossing.

We ran SigNoz self-hosted in WSL2 (Ubuntu 24.04) on native Docker Engine — not Docker Desktop, whose ClickHouse Keeper is known to segfault. Deployment is via SigNoz Foundry (foundryctl

), their "one config, one command" tool: you declare the whole deployment in a casting.yaml

, forge

expands it into platform manifests plus a checksum-pinned casting.yaml.lock

, and cast

deploys it.

Because the judges of this hackathon may re-run Foundry to reproduce our deployment, we didn't hand-edit generated files — we put the fix in the source of truth. Our casting.yaml

sets both gates as first-class env overrides on the SigNoz service:

spec:
  deployment:
    flavor: compose
    mode: docker
  signoz:
    spec:
      version: v0.133.0
      image: signoz/signoz:v0.133.0
      env:
        SIGNOZ_FLAGGER_CONFIG_BOOLEAN_ENABLE__AI__OBSERVABILITY: "true"
        SIGNOZ_FLAGGER_CONFIG_BOOLEAN_USE__DASHBOARD__V2: "true"

We verified this is the right way to do it: forge

merges those overrides into the defaults (it doesn't wipe the DB/store env), the flags render into the generated compose.yaml

, and — critically — forge is deterministic: re-running it produces a byte-identical lock. So a judge who clones the repo and runs foundryctl forge && foundryctl cast

gets the feature-reachable deployment, not the default empty shell. The casting file is part of the argument, not a checkbox.

GROUP BY

. Know your storage model before you emit.SigNoz built a genuinely good LLM-observability product. We made it reachable, filed the bug that was blocking cost, and added the measured-quality signal it was missing — all in OSS, all reproducible from one casting.yaml

.

*Repo (with casting.yaml + casting.yaml.lock for reproduction): *

── more in #large-language-models 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @signoz 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/we-made-signoz-s-llm…] indexed:0 read:8min 2026-07-26 ·